On 9/20/2010 7:03 AM, dave wrote:

...
How long did that go on?

Not all that long, before the products spread out, encircled the earth
and permeated every corner of the globe.

Regards,
JS

Joe from Kokomo wrote:


Consumerism or survival?

Do you allow for any shades of gray between those two extremes?

To me consumerism is bad if carried to extremes, i.e., a smaller
percentage of the wold's population consuming a larger percentage of the
world's resources.

"Survival" to me means living in a cave without electricity, eating
snakes and bugs.

Please clarify your definitions.


Consumerism is materialism, the opposite of spirituality.

If I have to "live in a cave" to try to save the future for my grandkids
I will do it.

I've already given up meat and air-conditioning and watering the lawn.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:


For those that say we are getting cooler, they may be right. The very
latest solar data shows that the sun may be "slowing down" (for lack of
a better term) and that this will give us another cooling Maunder
Minimum as experienced circa 1600-1700.


Even though the sun is relatively quiet, 2010 is the hottest year on
record so far. What will happen when the sun returns to normal?

On 9/20/2010 7:01 AM, dave wrote:

...
How about we quit eating meat? That's the fastest, most effective means
of making a big difference.

That begins an interesting thought. How, we Americans, greatly extended
our lifespans, health and well being from grazing humongous amounts of
beef and having the American diet centered around this excellent source
of protein.

Now that the rich find that the population is too expensive to feed a
diet of beef to, they wish to convert us over to a diet of rice, veges
and tofu. Some idiots will actually begin touting this as desirable!
If you ever doubt the lack of intelligence in a good portion of the
population, you just gave a good example of a reminder ...

You go eat that chit ... leaves more steak for me!

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
On 9/19/2010 3:54 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
Well, it's not energy per se. It's the gaseous droplets and particulate
matter ejected into the air by volcanoes.

Absolute FACT #1: Carbon dioxide IS a "greenhouse" gas (lets solar heat
in but won't let it escape).
...

Actually, cO2 is rather benign and not any real thing to worry about.
Anyone growing marijuana or aquarium plants, and supplying them with
excess cO2, knows the voracious appetite of plants for carbon dioxide.
The effect of adding more cO2 is very dramatic on plant growth. When we
finally find another fuel source, the plants will clean up this problem
very quickly. All life on this planet is carbon based, carbon is a
nutrient, not a poison.

This has been dis-proven. The added vegetation offsets very little net
carbon.

John Smith wrote:
On 9/19/2010 4:21 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

...
Moreover, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the magnitude
and nature of the human effect, and what it means to be instantaneous
in geologic time. RHFs arguments use gut instinct and common sense,
when neither one is reliable in matters of science. I have no idea
where these gross magnitude numbers come from, but if this is oil
company data, it is designed to appeal to the lowest common
denominator of understanding and gullibility. Sorry, RHF - this is
just pseudoscientific mishmash.

The truth of the matter is, we are not going to stop generating cO2
anytime soon. Energy is what keeps everyone eating ... so although there
will be a lot of people profiting in making energy very expensive, we
will go on using it in ever increasing quantities. Then, the oil will be
gone, and we will begin building nuclear plants, bet on it.

Regards,
JS

How about we quit eating meat? That's the fastest, most effective means
of making a big difference.

RHF wrote:


As big as NYC, Tokyo, Shanghai etc etc or any of our
Man-Make Mega-Cities are I don't recall an Air Traffic
having to be diverted around them due to their Pullution :
As was the recent case of the Islanic Volcano

How long did that go on?

John Smith wrote:


'Special Dave',rated by the rich and
powerful. Watching people sacrifice the future of their children, and
indenturing their children in indebted servitude to pay for the
lifestyles of the rich and famous seems like the ultimate form of child
abuse I can imagine.

Tell it to the people who cut taxes and went to war. They ran up a
trillion and a half dollars more debt from 2001-2009. They did it "off
budget" meaning that when the real cost was merged with the general
fund, we were suddenly an extra trillion in the hole.

If you think Obama's a big spender, what do you think of Bush?

RHF wrote:


- Moreover, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the magnitude
- and nature of the human effect, and what it means to be
instantaneous
- in geologic time. RHFs arguments use gut instinct and common sense,
- when neither one is reliable in matters of science.

BpnJ - ? matters of science ?



Yes. Science.

Your "climategate" was a creation of big oil. The quotes were taken out
of context, were not part of any official documents, and ultimately
proved nothing, except that some people will wrap their lips around any
sausage dangled in front of them.

On Sep 20, 5:59*am, John Smith wrote:
On 9/20/2010 6:36 AM, dave wrote:

...
Consumerism is materialism, the opposite of spirituality.

If I have to "live in a cave" to try to save the future for my grandkids
I will do it.

I've already given up meat and air-conditioning and watering the lawn.

And, the rich-elite power brokers thank you, from their yachts, as they
head to a nice Caribbean island. *What more can you give up, I'd like a
nice yacht!

Have you considered moving to san fransicko and eating tofu?

Regards,
JS

That's what I do ;-)

So wha power brokers, exactly, are benefitting from Dave's choices?